Revolutions are like a cart running downhill, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his brilliant analysis of the French Revolution. The American media is focused on the demand for democratic reform voiced by the mobs in the streets of Egypt. But revolutions don’t stop with the initial demands. Revolutions create power vacuums that draw new players with different agendas from those who initially sought to make the revolution. Revolutions move to the extremes, usually to the left. Those who join the mob to demand more liberty will ultimately create a regime that extinguishes all liberty. Did those who ran through the streets of Paris in July 1789 think they were revolting for the ensuing “Terror”? Did the workers who charged the Winter Palace in 1917 think they were fighting for the Gulag? Did Banisadr and Ghotbzadeh think they were replacing the shah of Iran with a theocracy?

The choice in the streets of Egypt is not Mubarak or democracy. It is Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the Muslim Brotherhood, like the ayatollahs of Tehran, who are the best situated to benefit from and direct the revolution, unless of course the Egyptian military holds firm.

If the Brotherhood comes to power, it will behave as did its proxy in Gaza: one man, one vote, one time, with the opposition shot in the legs and thrown off rooftops.

I will not write a brief for the oligarchy nor would I have written one for the shah. But just because you can visibly see evil does not mean that its elimination will produce something better.As the aphorism of revolution states, “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its own children.” And in so doing becomes something its creators never intended.

Our first order of business in Egypt is to produce stability and then to do something we have not done before: Assist the Egyptians in finding a mechanism for a transition to reform through an evolutionary rather than revolutionary path. The only institution capable of doing this is the Egyptian military. They should not be abandoned as was the Iranian military.

Had Obama done more than basked in the adulation of his Cairo speech and actually leaned on the regime to evolve toward a more legitimate and inclusive government, we might not be confronting the mess ahead of us.

For decades we have been dumping billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons into Egypt. A revolution means that those weapons could fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. This will tilt the balance of power in the Middle East. Emboldened by success in Egypt, radical Islam will next show its power in the Gulf and threaten the world’s oil supply. Already there are riots in Yemen.

The world as we knew it might just spin out of control. It remains to be seen if the Egyptian military, with or without our support, will rise to the task of restoring order and stability in Egypt and become a vehicle for vital political change. But if Obama emulates the horrendous decisions Jimmy Carter made during the Iranian revolution, radical Islam will spread through the region like a forest fire with the Saudis facing the ultimate conflagration.

I have seen this coming for a long time… All of these (US backed) autocrats (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen etc.) will be toppled one after another like dominoes by the poor Arab masses (and Islamofascists) in their countries…

The aging Sunni despots are heading for the grave and the ash heap of history… When autocrats fall, it is not always democracy that rises. And in the Middle East, democracy is not necessarily America’s ally. Democracy in the Middle East means, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood etc. will come to power, they will turn all of their countries into Islamic Republic’s with Sharia, and promote endless war against Israel… If that’s what you want, then by all means, keep on pushing for Democracy in the Middle East…

The Muslim Brotherhood has been waiting for this opportunity for decades… This is their big opportunity… The Question is, will the Muslim Brotherhood ‘go for it’? or will they ‘sit it out’? If they pick the wrong choice they will probably get destroyed. If they decide that the moment for revolution has arrived, and they fail — they will certainly be wiped out by Mubarak. And even if they are cautious and stay out of it, Mubarak may decide to destroy them anyway… I think that the Muslim Brotherhood will ‘strike while the iron is hot’. This is their big opportunity. They have been waiting for this moment for decades. The army will have the ultimate say over what goes down. But the Muslim Brotherhood has INFILTRATED and DEEPLY PENETRATED the army… The Muslim Brotherhood will certainly win, in my opinion. It’s only a matter of time.

In Egypt and Yemen they are fighting for control… If/When the “protesters” win (and take over Egypt and Yemen), Islamic Fundamentalists will then control both sides of the Suez Canal… they will shut it down… and you will have $10-$15 a gallon oil… (the US Economy and Global Economy will collapse… etc.) and we will go to War…

War, as Hellish as it sounds, may be our best hope. Time seems to inure to the benefit of the Islamofacists. I see no credible resistance to Islamism within the Muslim world. Not even in the various militaries we’ve equipped and funded with billions over several decades. Do you?

It will not be endless, it will be Armegeddon, and someone (US) had better be ready to secure the major oil fields and infrastructure, or the World will return to Medieval Days, enduring a Thousand Years of Darkness.

That’s good forward thinking AD, but don’t count on it under this President. He seems to think the Western world deserves to be taken down a number of pegs. Securing the oil fields would keep that from happening.

I have little to add to this cogent analysis.
The world should be deeply concerned about the following-unlike the Carter follies, where the blind were leading the blind, Obama and his administration are enthralled with revolutionaries, the likes of which render the Muslim Brotherhood an object of their desire.
Some mistakes made by leaders are out of sheer clueless decisions, others are out of mendacious calculation. I firmly think that Obama belongs to the mendacious cast of characters.

I expected this. In fact, I’m surprised it took this long. Islam always strikes when it suspects its enemy’s resolve is weak. It did that with Carter and now it’s doing it with Obama. They know that the Won not only won’t fight them, he’ll join them (if he hasn’t already). So, under the circumstances, this is the perfect time to start a revolution.

My first terrible fear is Israel. If Egypt falls, she will be completely surrounded. Egypt was never her friend but at least it wasn’t her enemy – if it falls to the Muslim Brotherhood, she will be completely surrounded. My second terrible fear is that if Egypt falls, radicals gain control of the Suez Canal. Yeah, that’s going to be fun having cruise ships of scantily-clad females sail through a territory filled with lunatics who stone a woman to death just for showing her ankle.

Egypt has always been Israel’s enemy. We (the US) had to pay them billions over the years to get them to swallow their hatred. Muslim schools throughout the Middle East, including Egypt, teach the children to hate the Jew above all others. They accept our billions and swallow their hatred because it gives them something they want….. to bleed the beast until it is weak enough to slaughter.

“Give them a whiff of grapeshot.” – Napoleon Bonaparte ordering the cannons to open fire at the mob.

It is one way to come to power, if you are the military.

If you seek to remain in power, then this needs to be the prelude of the leadership forming an orderly method of leaving the scene while, at the same time, going after those trying to use the mob to gain power. Because if you don’t you WILL get organized opposition, and then your life span is very, very short. You can leave alive and people spitting at the sound of your name for eternity, but have a civil society remaining which is the job of any leader of a Nation… or you can let those who have no interest in civil society as shown by utilizing mobs, take over and your life goes with it and the disgrace remains.

There are no good answers for a leader at that point, just the choice on if you honor being the leader of a Nation more than you want the power, which will be short-lived.

Yes, the Administration has no clue of the dangers it is unleashing by supporting “the people” in Egypt. The only political faction that has the strength and the structure to take over power in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether or not the army will allow that to happen is a different story. But always remember that the Palestinians finally held their own “free” and “fair” elections. And what did they come up with? Hamas. Just because you have “elections” in the Muslim world does not mean you will get a democratic form of government.

The only thing that matters in Egypt, the only thing that ever really mattered in Egypt, was and still is the Suez Canal. Anything that endangers the Suez Canal, or access to it, could destroy the world economy. Most, if not all, of the oil for Europe goes through the Canal, not to mention of lot of the world’s trade goods. It makes the Straits of Hormuz look like chump change when you compare all of the different types of shipping that goes through the Canal as opposed to the mostly oil shipping that goes through the Straits of Hormuz. If a radical Islamic government takes over in Egypt, it could blackmail the west, especially Europe, by simply threatening to close the Suez Canal permanently. Europe, which is already weak, could cave to whatever demands the new Egyptian government wants.

And what could some of these “demands” be? How about not supporting Israel or remaining neutral if Israel is attacked in another Arab Israeli War? Obama and Clinton should just keep their mouths shut and hope and pray that the army puts in power at least a reasonable strong man that is pro west and willing to deal with both the United States and Israel. But if the Islamists take over Egypt, you could have another arab-Israeli war in a matter of years, if not months. Only this time the Egyptians would be armed with American weapons that were funded by American foreign aid, just as the army was in Iran when the Shah fell.

“Studies of revolution, including the Russian Revolution, show that the loyalty of several companies of armed, disciplined, and well-led soldiers willing to continually fire into the mobs would crush any revolution.”

I guess this is probably true. Although it’s hard to think that the populace will be eager to embrace the evolutionary reforms (managed change?) that you then go on to advocate after their fellow countrymen are slaughtered in the streets. I can’t imagine they’d have too much trust in the military after that either, the very institution you claim can be a meaningful engine for positive change in that country. And why should Mubarak or any other Egyptian leader feel compelled to implement any reforms if he can just order the Army to shoot his own people down when they rise up in revolt?

As far as Obama being faulted here, why pick him out of the crowd? Every U.S. President has handled Egypt the same way, other than George W. Bush for awhile, who tried to walk the walk and actually push for the kind of changes you advocate, to the howling disagreement of the enlightened Left in this country and pretty much everyone else, a few stalwart Neocon types excepted, although plenty who signed on for that cause abandoned it and him when the going got tough in Iraq and Bush couldn’t poll past 30%.

No One, including G.W. Bush, has dealt with the Islamist threat throughout the Middle East, and elsewhere, in a serious enough matter. Bush came closer to the correct response, but not close enough. We’re going to have to fight these barbarians that even the “moderate” Muslims appear to to have no problem with. If Muslims are unwilling to clean up their own house, then Infidels will have to…. because their filth is spilling out onto the streets the rest of us have to use. The sooner the better.

Everything you say is accurate.
In his book “My Story” written shortly before he died the Shah of Iran actually implicated US intelligence in causing the 1979 revolution.
Western intelligence seems extremely capable of turning a blind eye to some popular uprisings and letting the local government get on with slaughtering the opposition, as in Iran recently, but very quick in other situations to put pressure on local authorities to go gently.
They know what you know, and what de Tocqueville knew, so one can only assume their intention is to cause the Islamification of Egypt and the region.

The revolution should have happened in North Africa before it happened in Iran. Iranian history begins with the Declaration of Human Rights. Carter did not want Pax Iranica. He wanted Pax Americana. The US military has benefited as it had a new foe to keep its funding. With Iraq and soon Afghanistan neutralized, there needs to be new threats, and North Africa is ripe for that. Just look at the amount of monetary and human outflow from Iran to USA, after Khomeini’s coup. The same will happen to North Africa. Quo Bene? USA.

In Iran you yourself chose the government, Vilayat-e Faqih is Iranians own idea. As for quo bene – it is the mullahs who benefit, and the revolutionary guards. They own majority of businesses in Iran, they own treasury, they own Iranian oil. And they are Iranians, Iranians who are against US and the West. So US did not benefit. Carter may have dreamt of democracy in Iran but as a result of his vacillation – like it or not – Iranians have government they themselves invented.

In 1978, the Carter administration supported the Shah’s overthrow. The Shah was portrayed by the left as corrupt and evil (as the left still portrays George Bush).

Hillary Clinton and Obama don’t have a clue. They see Egyptian riots as a people’s revolution and, because they are ignorant and want a socialist utopia, will support the overthrow of Mubarak’s regime.

When the wacko Muslim extremists seize control of Egypt, the purges will start. After that, Obama and Clinton will “decry the violence” but do nothing. The Middle East will become unstable politically. Gasoline will go to above $5.00/gallon here and Obama will get richer.

Worse, we have two years yet of Obama, and we’re still on the first few dominoes.

Remember, with Carter it wasn’t just Iran. Communist coups inspired by the Soviets toppled governments in Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, and Nicaragua – all within the last two or three years of that weakling’s administration.

As Brian Wesbury pointed out on Hugh Hewitt’s show on Friday, inflation is contributing to unrest, thank you Ben Bernanke, and your lousy QE2! Do you guys think inflation didn’t contribute to world unrest in the late 1970s, as well?

This process should have been started well before the Cairo speech … like, say, back in 2004.

But even a resolute President like GWB can be impeded by those who, in their delusions of moral equivalence between dictator and democrat, seek to reduce America to the least-common-denominator of international standing.

Including a certain Senator from IL who was elected to the Senate in 2004.

If Egypt goes the same way as Iran, the Progressives need to take a good hard look in the mirror … for once again we will see how such passive moral equivalence kills.

This pessimistic analysis is increasingly looking accurate. Already the Hamas has broken into the border towns and is fighting the Egyptians for control of North Sinai. FoxNews shows on its web site the religious (‘Islamist’) women on the streets of Cairo. It does look like a looming reply of the appalling transition in Iran from popular voices, including moderates, to the inevitable power grab and consolidation of the organized, motivated and coercive, Mafia-esque Islamic political parties.

When Tunisia happened, most heralded this as a positive step, an end to Arab tyrannies. While Tunisia is clearly now the precedent event that awoke the Egyptian masses, the euphoric period and notions of Arab flower children, or tank-stoppers (Tiananmen?) will vanish rapidly. Fouad Ajami, an optimist by nature, said that Mubarak dances the typical ME dance – ‘it’s me, the autocrat or the ones with the beards. The bogeyman.’

Whatever anyone thinks of Mubarak, I see no evidence that this assertion is wrong. While Ajami and others see it in part as a tool to discourage larger powers like the US from supporting the regime’s enemies, its essence is empirically backed.

Hizbollah controlling Lebanon is an extension of the Iranian orbit.

Hamas and its consolidation is the end to any (already moribund) notion of Israel and ‘Palestine’ coexisting.

The rise of a Muslim Brotherhood-coopted insurrection in Egypt is a recipe for disaster. The Suez will also be at risk.

You can’t have it both ways. Americans devoted to the democratic ideal in a messianic way, and unable to stop themselves (it’s not just Obama) from supporting ‘democratic’ revolutions in the ME will see that optimism about Arab democracy is nearly always – and sadly – misplaced.

I don’t think it is a matter of “if” Obama performs a Carter redux, but a matter of when, and from what I have read and heard coming out of this administration during this crisis in Egypt, I believe history is in the process of repeating itself.

What we are now witnessing in the middle east is the culmination of decades of efforts by radical islamic groups, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood along with all their deadly, acronomic offspring, to enlarge the caliphate as they continue to move forward for world domination.

It took over three centuries for the west to tire of muslim agression in Europe before they gathered the will to confront and defeat the Mohammidans, how much longer are we going to try and get along with a religious cult that seeks our demise and subjugation?

We cannot depend on Hussein Obama to make the right move, if indeed there is a right move to be made, if anything is done by our current administration it will be wrong. Hussein Obama & company cannot even run this country, much less make good decisions involving others.

I guess seen from a modern western democratic perspective the riots in Egypt and other Islamic countries appears to be a simple choice between having a western-tolerant (but not western friendly by any means) dictator in power or “democracy” representative of the will of the people. The very unpleasant reality however is that the dictatorship would almost certainly be replaced by a radical Islamic totalitarian gang of mullahs like we see in Iran. Which do you prefer? To laud the justifiable revolt by the people in the street who now see a way out from under a brutal dictatorship as “democracy in action” but then totally ignore the certainty that what would replace that dictatorship would be even worse is so, well, modern.

There is no way to know right now how all of this will play out of course whether in the short term or long term. The “Democratists” will assert that we must support the popular uprising and that in the long term that is the only moral and only truly effective decision. The reality may be something else again. The Islamists, clandestinely supported by massive oil revenues from those in the Arab world who desperately yearn for their tribe to put its mark once again upon the world stage, will almost certainly put those same people who support them to death once the Islamist revolution is accomplished. The privitive Islamism which is promoted with so much enthusiasm and money by many Saudis will, in the end, be their undoing. The real question is, how many millions will die once the Islamists have more oil-rich terrorities with which to impose their primitive views on their own people and, through economic blackmail, the rest of the world?

I don’t hear any talking heads on TV discussing these things. All I keep hearing are vauge allegiences to Democratic ideals for Islamic societies who are fundamentally, down to their very core, utterly undemocratic. Of course westerners should support democratic revolutions in the support of democracy. The question is, should westerners support the abstract notion of democracy in the pursuit of very undemocratic Islamist states just because it is “populist”? It was a popular uprising that brought the Iranian mullahs to power. Popular uprisings may or may not be democratic, but those poised to assume power in Egypt and other Arab countries have nothing but contempt and revulsion for western style democracy, of that there is no question.

So by all means TV talking heads, keep promoting the notion that any popular uprising is naturally “democratic”. I mean, what could go wrong?

This is what happens when you don’t know history….or are constantly revising it to further your agenda. You keep making the same old mistakes and live in an alternate reality. A very dangerous alternate reality.
Thank you morons on the left.

Correcto mundo; The Obama Regime doesn’t have the faintest idea what to do with a real crisis. Further evidence that the United States of America is in a serious decline from the top down.
We are without leadership.

If you were to complain that we’ve allowed ourselves to be outmaneuvered, again, by radical islamists and should have a more robust propaganda effort I would agree. However your backing of a brutal dictator trying to cede his power to his son in the face of an uprising of his people against him is abominable. I can just hear you telling us that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams should be jailed to stop the messy, bloody American revolution. After all, the people would be better off to wait for the British king to grant us our freedom. I don’t like the Muslim brotherhood any more than you do, but I strongly believe people have a right to self determination. Put down the riots by killing a few thousand? You’ve got to be kidding.

Exactly right. That’s an outrageous comment by this author – to repress a movement for freedom because, according to this author, Mubarek is the only wall against the Muslim Brotherhood. Nonsense. That’s a disgraceful suggestion – to repress a people’s desire for freedom because you assume that they want a more repressive regime?

The Iranian people didn’t want repression; they wanted and want, freedom. Consider how Obama sided with the repressive Iranian regime a year ago rather than with the demonstrators for freedom. Consider how he continues to support that repressive regime – enabling it to acquire nuclear weapons, enabling it to build up its strength in its agenda to become an imperial power in the Middle East. That’s the result of Obama’s support for the Iranian dictators.

And if he continues to support Mubarek – the same thing will result. A repressive regime will brutally take over – and brutally repress the people (a ‘wiff of grapeshot)…how disgusting.

So, according to you, it’s an Either-Or reality. Either freedom..which according to you means that they must die. Or repression..in which they can ‘live’. To you, there’s no argument. Repression wins.

Tell that to the Founders of the American Republic. Tell that to the people who fought for freedom in the 400 years that it took to move Europe from a tribal to a civic mode of governance. Tell that to the people who fought for the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution. Tell that to the people who fought against slavery in the US – and the repression of blacks in the post-slavery era.
Tell that to those who fought in WWII…

You know, ETAB, unfortunately the record isn’t precisely shining about popular movements in the Islamic world, in which one of the main players is a fundamentalist Islamic group. In point of fact, it virtually always becomes violent, because that’s what those movements do. At the drop of a hat.

And you are surprised at the fact that the Islamic world is mostly repressive governments and strong men leading them?

The American Revolution has nothing to do with this. That was an organized effort to throw off tyranny in which a formal Declaration of Independence was announced and a provisional government formed with an army to back it up. This is a disorganized mob inciting riots. The author is correct that when such a thing happens it almost always ends up with a worse result for the people in terms of human rights.

Remember the Tea Party of 1773? The Egyptian people are not a ‘disorganized MOB’..inciting riots. They are demonstrating for freedom.

And it doesn’t happen overnight or easily. You, like everyone else, are ignoring the underlying infrastructure of WHY this area is experiencing this massive unrest. You are ignoring the economy, you are ignoring the population size, you are ignoring urbanization.
Not one individual on this thread is considering these variables – and they are vital..to understanding both the demonstrations, and the rise of Islamic fascism.

Sorry, Mr Miller, but you’ve got it all wrong. What’s happening in the Arab world now is NEW. Egyptians have glimpsed freedom through their iPods. They’re not going to overthrow a secular dictatorship only to put themselves under a religious tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood has no one to offer leadership anyway. Al-Bareidi has no base in Egypt. Mubarak’s appointee to the vice-presidentship is unacceptable to the people. Obama is of course completely lost – what did he ever know about foreign affairs anyway? It’s frustrating to an extreme that at this vital juncture the United States does not have a statesmanlike president with informed advisers who can guide a vast movement of peoples wanting democracy and liberty towards those goals. Meanwhile Mubarak is letting prisoners out to rape and loot, and deliberately creating chaos in order to justify the sort of merciless crackdown you’re advocating. The only possible help for the revolutionaries could come from the army, which at this moment is siding with them. Or is this only a ruse to help Mubarak? We’ll soon know.

I totally agree with you – and with Dave C. The perception by the West is that ‘all Arabs are the same’ and ‘All Arabs haven’t a clue about democracy and don’t want it and want repression’…that’s short-sighted and biased.

That’s not what the people on the streets in Cairo are talking about; that’s not what they want. As for the ‘women on the streets’ in hijabs and veils – that doesn’t mean that they want repression! They are protesting for freedom!

When Islam as a whole rises up in unison and condemns the jihad and the terrorists I will believe what you folks are saying. Until then I am unconvinced. You’ll have to show me where all of this has worked out. So far it hasn’t anywhere that I know of and if anything is going south ala Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, Yemen etc.

Certainly the people don’t want more repression, but frankly at this juncture they are being fed to the radicals and don’t have a lot of say in the matter. In the end they certainly will have no say in Egypt. I hope I am proved wrong, but I doubt it.

First, before you, living in a repressive authoritarian regime, can speak out against those very same authorities, and against jihad – you must have the freedom to speak! And the peoples in these nations don’t have the freedom. Their ‘religion’ is used to repress them.

So, to do it ‘ass backwards’ and declare that FIRST they must all rise up and reject jihadism – ignores reality. FIRST – they must change the political infrastructure so that they can express free thoughts.

You’re both dreaming. Look, I 100% hope that you’re right, and I’m wrong. I would love to be wrong.

Unfortunately, I have to look at the situation on the ground, and judge it against history. (Nice attempt at using the racism brush, BTW, but it has nothing to do with the Egyptian people being Arab, the same thing happened in France.) Revolutions led by mobs turn to the next strong man in line after the dictator is deposed for “order”. Like you, I wish it wasn’t so. Unlike you, I do not let my fantasies override my reason. Again, I hope I’m wrong.

One thing you can be sure of is that this startling incompetent administration which has already wrecked our economy is now doing the same for our foreign policy. This unfortunately will not end well for our beloved country especially now that our domestic energy industry is being assaulted at a time when we will need it the most. Look for even harder times ahead and God help Israel.

As my arrogant mentor likes to say Obama is just looking out for the folks. The trouble is we don’t know which folks!

The only society that evolved into democracy is Britain. Writers like this one are proffering really bad advice that is not backed by history. When I was in history grad school studying revolutions I wondered then researched and wrote on why the idea of transitional governments or provisional governments under benign monarchy had no success even when they were made up of the most respected leaders in the country as they were in Russia and Germany’s Weimar Republic. They are all swept aside by impatient radical and ruthless tiny minorities, mostly because they are seen as too slow and too establishment.

Paul Bremer in Iraq and Gen MacArthur in Japan had better results. That is who should be consulted now. Otherwise, we may see something like the French Revolution which, once begun lasted 150 years. Revolutionaries are men who feel slighted by their own societies and seek a bigger role. Saudi Arabia, for instance, exiled Bin Laden, not deferential enough to his self importance.

It is very much worth noting that this is round two for the Middle East which broke free of imperial western custodianship after the fall of the disastrous Ottoman empire and backing the Nazis in the 50′s. Essentially, healthy nationalism should replace Muslim imperialism which was forced on these peoples a thousand years ago and brought misrule that turned paradises into barren deserts.

People are quick to cite a Carter/Iran analogy, but note that Brits will ironically note that it was Eisenhower who refused to lift a finger to help the UK during the 1954? Suez crisis that hastened the demise of the British empire. The independence movements brought many opportunistic dictators to rule former colonies. They, of course, blame all their shortcomings on colonialism. That’s a dead end.

The American Revolution has often been called the shot heard round the world. Patronizing paternalists who say that some people are not ready dismiss this. After all, who was in a position to tell George Washington etc all this? Oppressed people all over the world nurture that hope in their hearts. That includes, btw, those living under one party plantation regimes in certain American cities!

jimmah was a naive incompetent. obama admire’s ahdmidijab (or is that jealous of his power?). he heart is muslim, and he’d welcome the caliphate – he’s president of the largest muslim country, he said so himself. obama wants the installation of more muslim theocracies. If he truly supported freedom, he would have supported the protesting iranians in 2009.

I totally and completely disagree with this ‘analysis’, which I consider more of an emotional opinion rather than a reasoned analysis.

The Middle East people do not want more repression – as they are now repressed by a political infrastructure that is tribal rather than civic. What’s the difference?
The tribal political structure is, like all collectivist systems, two-class. There’s the Elite Set of Rulers, in this case, kin-based. And the rest of the people. Power rests with the elite – enforced by theologic force and/or military force.

This won’t work in an ECONOMY that is industrial and requires entrepreneurship -and above all, in a POPULATION that is in the multimillions and urban rather than agricultural rural.

If you have these two variables: an industrial economy and a multimillion urban population – you MUST move into a civic, non-tribal or democratic mode of governance. This means – you MUST enable a middle class, who are individuals, entrepreneurial, engaged in private business enterprise and private property.

So- to move from one repressive regime, that operates in a two-class structure of Authoritarian Rulers…and the rest of the people..into one exactly the same – would be a dysfunctional move. If it happened, and it could – it would only be Phase 2 of the Revolution (with Phase 1 being the overthrow of Tribalism One). This phase would be a search for stability and ‘hope and change’ (heh- how’s that working out in the US????).

But phase 3 is the key; this is where authority and power moves to a middle class of civic, non-tribal, free citizens with the power to make the laws about their economy and well-being. That’s what must, and will happen in the ME. Why? Because you can’t maintain a repressive force over that many people – connected as they are to the Real World of Freedom – and in an industrial economy.

So- this emotional tirade of the author is – in my view, ..an emotional tirade and bereft of facts and reason.

…you are confusing the issues. THE people certainly do not want more repression. that is not going to be relavent. The strong man will carry the day. and that will be the muslim brotherhood. IT IS A TERRIBLE TURN OF EVENTS. one which I blame on both bush and obama. bush because he didn’t call out the true evil of islam and obama because he supports islam and the muslim brotherhood.

I think obama is backing the muslim brotherhood. my prediction …..read the link below. OBAMA will tell Mubarak to step aside for the islamist Elbaradei.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, and I disagree with you. You, and others, are ignoring two key variables: the economy and demographics. You are only focusing on your own fear of the Muslim Brotherhood; the people don’t want more repression.

The facts are, that the Middle East has moved over the past decades into an industrial economy. You can’t sustain such within a two-class structure. And the old ME is two-class; the tribal elite kin-based rulers over the ruled masses. This won’t work in an industrial economy that requires the majority of the population as private businesses, entrepreneurial, private ownership. This requires a three class system with a middle class. And the middle class must have the political power – that’s a civic rather than tribal mode; a democracy.

The other variable you are ignoring is demographics. The ME has exploded its population, and urbanized. Again, this moves the organizational mode into a requirement for a civic, non-kin based political system. That system enables a middle class – and gives legislative and economic power to that class.

That is what is going on in the ME. When your population size reaches a critical threshold, and when your economic mode is industrial and urban – your political mode has to move into a civic mode.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not wanted by the majority of people there. Sure, IT wants power, but its repressive force isn’t welcome.

Obama is an ignorant and empty-headed failure – this includes his failure to support the Iranian people’s demonstrations for democracy, his support of the Iranian dictatorship – which has allowed them to achieve nuclear power, and supported their agenda of imperialism in the ME. Obama’s support for Mubarek is the same thing – it will harm the ME movement to democracy. Remember, he supported Zelaya in Honduras, and Zelaya’s attempt to violate the Honduran constitution and get more power. Obama and Clinton should stay out – and leave the Egyptian people get their freedom.

Obama is an ignorant and empty-headed failure – this includes his failure to support the Iranian people’s demonstrations for democracy, his support of the Iranian dictatorship – which has allowed them to achieve nuclear power, and supported their agenda of imperialism in the ME. Obama’s support for Mubarek is the same thing – it will harm the ME movement to democracy. Remember, he supported Zelaya in Honduras, and Zelaya’s attempt to violate the Honduran constitution and get more power. Obama and Clinton should stay out – and leave the Egyptian people get their freedom.

YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH

you got obama pegged correctly.

but obama is not supporting Mubarak in fact he is and has undermined him.

he supports the people who support his idiotic disgusting policies ..that is why he did not support the Iranian movement last year when it could have resulted in freedom. Egypt will not turn out that way.

even with the Mubarak government the people basically have most of the freedoms they could have. One could do pretty much as he pleased within normal decency as long as it did not undermine the government.

Who was spurring the attacks on the christians ?? who was agitating againdt the Mubarak government. Mubarak was a bad actor ……sorry to break the news but the muslim brotherhood will prove to be a lot worse.

Egpyt is not read for democracy. look at the USA …they are failing at it. Obama is using voter fraud …running a shadow government of czars …making unconstitutional laws and you think that the egyptians will be able to govern themselves. NOT A CHANCE. they are still for the most part SCREWED.

I am very sorry to see these things happening, so don’t think I am cheerleading …I am not. People fail to see the threat that is islam. PERIOD.

Since I taught research methods – then, I don’t accept such a table without knowing the questions asked and the population/respondent attributes and the percentage of the population. Without that data, the poll is unreliable.

Iran is a superb example of that. Things were bad for the people under the Shah. BUT under the Ayatollah’s they’ve come to be so much worse. And yet the people wanted the Ayatollah’s instead of the Shah.

And we have the Islamists waiting in the wings to take power if they are given half a chance. Just like the Bolsheviks seized power from the people who overthrew the Czar. History repeats itself. Especially when miscreants like the Muslim Brotherhood are there to learn from it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It matters little what Lambs think if Wolves are of a different opinion.]

…actually if you didn’t speak against the Shah no one bothered you. those agitating against the Shah were the islamists.

it was or is similar with egypt. in both cases the population found a stable enviornment in which one could conduct ones own business. their only problems were the islamists. who else is killing christians and tourists??

the other corruption is found in all third world countries …their form of taxation. It is what keeps people poor but getting rid of Mubarak will not address any of those issues and creat another set as well.

sorry …got to turn to the east and pray now …I plan to start a prayer rug company.

I think a great number of Americans have been jumping up and down about this for a while now…welcome to the club Claudia…
Obama was raised Muslim, went to Muslim school, disappeared into the woodwork only to emerge the Manchurian and uncontested about his lack of background..high school class..where, when, who..not some hand picked dip, the whole class, yearbooks etc
it’s a deep dark secret that the people who elected him have not looked into and will not…after all, he’s the first black @$$ we’ve had in the WH..we’ve had plenty of white ones that they have torn to pieces..but not him.

Maybe another lesson is that we shouldn’t be pumping billions of dollars worth of weapons into unstable nations. Or maybe we should realize that the American government can’t pick good leaders abroad any more successfully than it picks good leaders domestically.

A lawless mob is a lawless mob whether it is in Egypt, Tehran, or St Petersburg. Force, especially in the early stages of an insurrection is critical in quelling it. The message has to be stop the looting and burning, then we will talk.

Several sites, including world media, are reporting the fact that the U.S. is behind the riots in Egypt. It appears the administration want to replace U.S. ally Mubarak with the Muslim Brotherhood.

On a ynetnews.com article, “Clinton: Egypt must transition to democracy”
Clinton deceives. She knows democracy is NOT part of Islam.
As Clinton/Obama well know, Muslims DON’T want democracy. A large pecent of Muslims who have immigrated to Western countries declare they want Islamic sharia law implemented in our countries – NO democracy.

If Mubarak’s government is brought down, although the government is corrupt, the consequences could be horrendous. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood are ready to take control of the country. The tragic results would probably be the same as the cruel Mullahs’ control of Iran. The suffering of Iranians is enormous. Who can ever forget President Jimmy Carter’s betrayal of our ally, the Shah of Iran. As one Iranian told me, when the Shah ruled Iran, “those were the good old days”.

first we were against it (people’s popular uprising in IRAN ignored by Obummer & co))

now we’re for it? (people’s uprising in Egypt (verbally) supported)

raise your hand if you think Obama would not send the army out if the tea party did massive demonstrations that got out of control right here in good old USA?

crying about loss of internet in EGYPT during a crisis- while trying to get same dictatorial control of internet here??

something smells

Much as I would love to see Egypt people (and all Muslims) gain real freedom and peace- I don’t feel optimistic it will happen – most of them are voluntarily slaves to ALLAh not by force by choice- most educated to hate and despise & fear ISrael. The other actors in the region will see this as opportunity and make sure it does become one more ISLAMIC state hostile to the West. While our leaders mouth platitudes and do nothing or less

Has anyone considered that Obama precipitated this uprising with his speech at Cairo University? I would at least give the devil his due when considering it could well have been his influence that incited the students to riot, after bring encouraged by the Tunisian uprising. Fits rather well into the perception that he encourages advances by Islamic Fundamentalists. After all, he did say he would have to side with the Muslims if it came to a choice.

It is very much worth noting that this is round two for the Middle East which broke free of imperial western custodianship after the fall of the disastrous Ottoman empire and backing the Nazis in the 50′s.

Your wording here is very awkward. It implies that the Nazis were participants in Middle Eastern politics in the 1950s. Hitler died in April 1945 during the last days of World War II and Nazism was over (as a ruling party) from that point on.

<i<People are quick to cite a Carter/Iran analogy, but note that Brits will ironically note that it was Eisenhower who refused to lift a finger to help the UK during the 1954? Suez crisis that hastened the demise of the British empire.

Will somebody please inform these dickless, country club, chowder chomping wimps that a) it’s still a long time until November 2012 and b) Egypt proves that political situations can change literally overnight:

It is very tempting to compare Egypt to some benign example like the Phillipines. The problem is this. In a recent Pew poll, Egyptians were asked who they would favor in free elections, Islamists or secular “modernizers.” The result was Islamists, 57 percent, secular “modernizers” 24 percent. The Egyptians also favored the imposition of Sharia by more than 80 percent. Do you think a nation that overwhelmingly demands Sharia will maintain a “peace” treaty with the hated Jews? Are you aware that there are THREE times as many illiterates than college graduates? The concept of such a nation having liberal democracy — as we understand it, the foremost values being tolerance for the idea you hate and the emancipation of women — is foolish. I think the likelihood of a government of the Muslim Brotherhood (many of whom are in the parliament and engage in the most disreputable Jew-baiting) is more likely everyday and ever time Obama or Hillary speak. I can only hope that they are totally cynical and making anodyne public statements while pushing for a crack-down behind the scenes. Otherwise, their statements are inexcusably foolish and reach for temporary applause at the cost of a major national disaster.

This is the first real step towards Al Queda’s goal of reconstruction of the Caliphate. Laugh, if you will, but comes back in five years and tell me what you see. It may be a loosse confecderation at the beginning, but it is awful, perhaps fatal, news for Isreal, expecially if the United States takes a “hands off” or tolerant view of the situation. Isreal would be wise to wean itself off United States aid BEFORE Obama pulls it to impose an Arab-blessed “peace plan.”

Imagin an Isreal without a friend in the White House (a situation that already exists, although Obama has been careful to hide it) surrounded by Lebanon and Syria, armed by Iran; an Egypt restored to the Arab rejectionist front, armed by the United States; and Jordan, with the monarchy overthrown and replalced by the dominant Paalestinian majority.

The Jews will be lucky to get a new home in the badlands of Nevada, on federal land, courtesy of the gracious Obama, as a “humanitarian” gesture.

With Turkey going Islamist in slow motion (would the Turkey of 1980 have launched the Gaza flotilla?); Tunisia rocked by riots (the Islamist leader in exile has just announced plans to return home); Egypt tottering; Algeria having riots; Jordan convulsed in a non-reported uprising (led by groups who serve as the core of the police and army, not the Palestinians); leaks of documents showing the PLO Palestinians INSUDDICIENTLY militant; predictions that Libya is next (although it is had to believe that Kaddaffi will go quietly); and Pakistan with nukes; we appear to be living in 1938, except with nuclear weapons. No doubt Obama will tell us that this is reason for more “dialogue” and understanding of why they hate us. We are screwed and won’t even admit it.

Things could go bad in Egypt, but they may not. No doubt this is a dangerous and unpredictable time.
But there is another possibility that nobody seems to mention even as a possibility.
The people of Iran are still very unhappy about their present fraudulent and evil rulers, and will sooner or later be aware of what is happening in North Africa.
It may be that Iran is to Egypt as Egypt is to Tunisia.
The upheaval in Tunisia which seems to promote democracy has led to activities in Egypt which may well lead in the opposite direction, (but may not) This in turn may inspire an upheaval in Iran which may again favor democracy. Iran is waiting now to explode. Stranger things have happened.
Historically, at certain times such revolutionary activity has spread rapidly from country to country, the best example being what happened in Europe in 1848. There was revolution in France, all over Germany and in Hungary, and elsewhere as well.
(With help from Russia, the revolutionary fevers burnt out and were followed by repression. Again similar repression is a possibility today.)

Egypt now is in a state of anarchy. In this state the only power left is in the army, still respected by the masses.
Power should be taken over by them and form a non violent interim government.
Otherwise, all is a crapshoot and the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood woul be a likely and disasterous
outcome. Excellent analysis by Mr Miller.

I love the phrase “sooner or later.” What does that mean exactly. The Soviet Union lasted 72 years. The Chicoms still rule. The family dynasty of Kim Il-Sung still rules in North Korea despite decades of destitution. There is no prospect that the Mullahs in Iran will be overthrown anytime soon. They withstood weeks of thousands of people in the streets (more than in Egypt — look at photos and tell me which demonstrations were bigger). Of course, they had a militia draw from rural areas who had no loyalties to Tehran’s urbanites. When Iran was rocked, Obama made a point of saying nothing until he refused to back up the demonstrations of call for the Mullahs to go. In Egypt, he cautiously endorsed the demonstrations and called for an “orderly transition” — in other words of Mubarak to go as soon as possible. No wonder Mubarak’s son an family have reportedly fled to London and private jets — owned by Egypt’s business elite — are fleeing Cairo airport. Mubarak will be lucky if he avoids swinging from a lampost. The army obviously will not follow an order to adopt a Tienanmen Squre solution. In fact, he called a meeting of the defense chiefs today to reassure himself of military backing, and they told him to leave Egypt. The worst thing about this is that we will deny how disastrous this is. Obama will help us belive that an enlightened ero of “democracy” is coming to Egypt. The fault is ultimately the American people’s for having elected a Manchurian candidate, backed by who knows (we know that Obama got foreigh money from the Gaza Strip, but has anyone checked to see if there was any Saudi money?), whose ultimate loyalties are mysterious (if you were President, would you have bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia like some vassal?). Or perhaps you are one of those people, like our creduous media, who belives that Obama “raised $200 million ON THE INTERNET.”

The curious thing about many of the conservative opinions currently holding that the revolution will likely be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood or other bad despotic leaders, is that they tend to argue AS IF the proper debate is about whether Mubarak and his regime should stay in power or not, that is, about whether Egypt should be having this mass protest or not. Really from Friday on it was clear that the Mubarak regime could only stay in power with a massive and bloody repression that would change the character of Egypt into an outright police-state. We need to face it: THE REVOLUTION HAS HAPPENED. MUBARAK IS PERMANENTLY DE-LEGITIMIZED. It is thus nearly useless, and needlessly insulting to Egyptian hopes, to debate in the abstract about WHETHER a pro-democracy revolution ought to occur in Egypt or not. The arguments here about how the Muslim Brotherhood will take control, and how Revolutions bring you Jacobins, Bolsheviks, and Ayatollahs, would be perfectly appropriate, and to my mind, pretty convincing, were we having such a debate, say, back in 2005 or 2010 about whether our govt. should send aid to Egyptian dissident groups. But now?

And the Egyptians do care what we conservative Americans say. Our conversations about this cannot boil down to pissy complaints about MSM anchors or Obama speeches being too positive, and we pessimist conservatives knowing the real score… Strategy-wise, U.S. leaders must consider how likely the various bad scenarios are, and prepare for the most-likely ones…but they must simultaneously consider what the best case scenarios are and what might be done to encourage them. Or did the vicious and relentless “Iraq is a disaster” propoganda campaign of 2003-2008 potty train all of us to never say another nice word about democracy in the ME ever again?

Is there not something un-American about offering no encouragement to Egyptian democrats in this situation?

BTW, what is the scenario for STILL BACKING MUBARAK now? He’ll crack down, the army will stick by, and we’ll continue to support, with massive aid still delivered? The Cairo street will just go back to pre-2011 status quo? No. The scenario could thus only be our backing a military dictatorship that a) had killed and imprisoned tens of thousands in early 2011, and b) would only tenuously hold onto power. Our President is simply politely recognizing the writing on the wall when he has Sec. Clinton say the “transition must be orderly.” Because obviously, there is now going to be at least that.

And we’re going to go on muttering about the Muslim Brotherhood? Or irrationally connecting the occurrence of the revolution with Obama somehow? Look, you either come out openly for a U.S. supported Mubarak crackdown(yeah, yeah, with some in-house regime transition down the line), or you try to find the LaFayette elements in this revolution and come out in favor of them. Those are positions, not opinion-gestures that luxuriate in the pleasures of blanket pessimism.

Let me get this straight. We should be sanguine about what is happening in Egypt because of the “possibility” of democratic change? Are you deluded? Eighty percent of Egyptians in a recent poll favored the imposition of Sharia Law.

Do you really think the demonstrations in urban Cairo will lead to democracy?. This is more remote than the possibility of democracy in Iraq — a possibility SENATOR Clinton thought delusional, the deposing of Saddam supposedly opening the way for the Shiites to attain political (Islamist) power — but at least this was being imposed by American force of arms. In Egypt, democracy is being imposed by — who — Mohammed El-Baradei, the stooge of Iran, who supports participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the new government?

Hillary says that Mubarak should prepare for a democratic transition; this puts the Obama government ahead of the demonstrators, who want Mubarak to go AFTER the September elections of someone else. So now we are not just letting events happen, we are giving Mubarak a push. Sounds familiar? Of course, the sick Shah ended up fleeing to Egypt, when the United States refused him entry. Where will Mubarak of Egypt go? Yes, we will have “democracy” in Egypt, Islamic “democracy” of the umma under the authority of the Qu’ran.